Archived: High View Care Services Limited - 161 Croydon Road

We found the following examples of good practice.

• The provider gave visitors information about infection control procedures before they visited the service to prepare them. The service booked visitors in at a time that suited people and was spaced out to avoid potential infection transmission with other visitors.

• Visitors were provided with a face mask and alcohol gel was available to sanitise their hands. Visitors usually did not enter the home at all to reduce the risk of infection transmission, instead visits occurred in the garden.

• Sanitised seating with protection from the rain was provided in the garden.

• Staff checked the temperature of all visitors on arrival and asked whether they had any symptoms of covid-19 or had travelled to any high-risk areas recently.

• All staff received training in infection control, including how to don and doff PPE. Staff followed suitable infection control guidelines including the way they used PPE.

• The provider had a 'pandemic team' of managers who met weekly to review guidelines and ensure contingency plans were in place for any further spike in coronavirus cases or seasonal pressures.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This was the first rating inspection of 161 High View Care Service since they registered. We have rated the service Good overall.

There were two registered managers in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Risks to people were managed in a way that promoted their safety. Risk assessments were in place and detailed measures to reduce harm to people. Staff were trained in safeguarding people from abuse and demonstrated that they understood the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns in line with the provider’s procedures. There were enough staff to provide safe and effective support to people. Staff employed at the service had undergone thorough recruitment checks to ensure they were fit to work with people. Medicines were administered and managed safely and in accordance with the provider’s procedures. Incidents and accidents were reviewed and lessons were learnt from them. Health and safety systems were in place and up to date. The service was clean and well maintained. Staff followed food hygiene and infection control procedures.

Staff were trained, supervised and had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. People’s needs were assessed with involvement of relevant professionals where required to ensure their needs were met. Staff understood how to support people with their needs. People were supported to have a balanced diet. Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals to attain positive outcomes for people. People received the support they needed to access healthcare services to maintain good health. People’s care and support were well coordinated. There were suitable facilities available for people to use.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff understood their responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Staff understood people’s needs and treated them with respect, kindness and dignity. Staff supported people to express their views and people were involved in planning their care and support. Care plans noted people’s Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) status and staff knew about them.

The service tailored the care and support they delivered to people to achieve positive outcomes for them. Each person had a support plan which set out how their needs would be met. People were supported to improve their daily living skills and to become independent as much as possible. People were encouraged to participate in activities they enjoyed. People were supported to maintain relationships they chose. Regular reviews took place to ensure the support delivered to people continued to meet their needs. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service. The provider investigated complaints in line with their procedure.

The registered managers understood their responsibilities and complied with the requirements of their registrations. Staff received the support, direction and leadership they needed to perform their roles efficiently. Various audits and checks took place to monitor and assess the quality of service provided. People’s views were sought through annual surveys and key worker sessions to improve the quality of the service. The service worked jointly with internal and external professionals and services to develop and improve the service.

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions. Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns and whistleblowing. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Two people said that their care plans reflected their current needs.

The provider also employed behavioural support advisors and councillors to provided advice to staff on how to support people using the service with their individual needs.

Is the service caring?

We observed positive interactions between staff and people using the service during the course of our visit.

We spoke with three people being supported by the service. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example; 'the staff treat me well, they are lovely people, they help me with my medication and take me out' and 'I find the staff here are very helpful'.

Is the service responsive?

People using the service told us they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to and they were confident the provider would do something about their complaint. We saw the homes procedures for dealing with complaints. The registered manager told us the home had not received any complaints however people using the service could be assured that their complaints would be fully investigated and action taken if necessary.

We found that people using the service were involved in the recruitment of staff.

Is the service well-led?

We found there were effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home, there was good teamwork and they were well supported by other staff and the registered manager. They told us they had completed an induction, they had received lots of training and they had received regular supervision from the manager.